Should the age of consent be lowered?

On January 10, the Supreme Court (SC), in its judgment in the State of Uttar Pradesh versus Anurudh & Anr., acknowledged the growing misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 in consensual, romantic adolescent relationships, where one party is a minor. It urged the Union government to initiate corrective measures to exempt genuine adolescent relationships from the special child protection law’s rigorous application. This has revived the debate on the ‘age of consent’.

The legal framework

The age of consent refers to the legally defined age at which an individual can consent to sexual activity. In India, it is currently 18 years, as established by the gender-neutral POCSO Act. Anyone below this age is classified as a “child”, making their consent to sexual acts legally irrelevant. Consequently, sexual acts with minors are treated as “statutory rape”, based on the legal presumption that children lack the capacity to give valid consent. Section 19 of the POCSO Act mandates that any person who suspects or has knowledge of an offence under the Act, whether likely to occur or already committed, must report it to the local police or the Special Juvenile Police Unit.

The 18-year threshold was firmly cemented in the broader criminal law framework by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. This Act notably amended, among others, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines ‘rape’ and, until 2012, had set the ‘age of consent’ at 16 years. The amendments, aimed at strengthening laws related to sexual offences against women, aligned IPC’s Section 375 with the 18-year age stipulated in POCSO, thereby ensuring comprehensive protection against child sexual abuse. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, retained this position: Section 63 defines rape to include sexual acts with or without consent if the woman is under 18.

Historically, India’s age of consent has evolved significantly — from 10 years under the 1860 IPC to 12 (Age of Consent Act, 1891), then 14, and subsequently 16 until POCSO raised it to 18 in 2012. Importantly, the age of consent is distinct from the ‘minimum age of marriage’, which under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, is 18 for females and 21 for males.

Arguments in favour

In recent years, the debate over the age of consent has intensified, particularly due to a surge in POCSO cases involving adolescents aged 16-18, where the girl often testifies to ‘consensual sex’. Advocates for lowering the age of consent argue that the current law fails to recognise adolescent sexuality, infringing on the autonomy of 16-18-year-olds capable of giving mature consent. Underscoring the POCSO Act’s intent, they emphasise that it was designed to prevent child sexual abuse, not to criminalise consensual romantic relationships among older adolescents.

Reflecting the ground realities of ‘adolescent sexual behaviour’, the NFHS-4 (2015-16) shows that 11% of girls had their first sexual experience before age 15, and 39% before 18. An Enfold study analysing 7,064 POCSO judgments (2016-2020) across Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal found that 24.3% of them involved romantic relationships, with 82% of victims in such cases refusing to testify against the accused. Another Enfold-Project 39A study of 264 cases under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of POCSO in the same States found that 25.4% of them involved consensual relationships. Therefore, many advocate for a more nuanced legal approach, one that respects the consent of those over 16 while ensuring safeguards against coercion, exploitation, or abuse of authority. They call for shifting the conversation towards informed, open dialogue around sex education, relationships, and consent, rather than blanket criminalisation, which often leads to misuse. In many Western democracies, the consent age is 16, with safeguards against coercion and abuse. Countries like the U.K., Canada, and several EU nations recognise ‘close-in-age’ exemptions or the ‘Romeo-Juliet clause’, ensuring that teenagers in consensual relationships with slightly older peers are not criminalised.

The challenge

However, there are genuine concerns on reducing the age of consent. Many believe that such a move would risk weakening the deterrent framework, enabling trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the guise of consent. The current “bright-line rule” — which treats all individuals under 18 as incapable of consenting to sexual activity — reflects a clear legislative intent to create an unambiguous zone of protection for minors under the POCSO Act and BNS. This rule avoids subjective judgments by replacing them with an objective, consistent standard. Individuals against reducing the age of consent acknowledge that courts may exercise “guided judicial discretion” in isolated cases involving consensual adolescent relationships, but they caution against codifying such exceptions in law.

More worryingly, child exploitation often occurs by individuals in positions of trust, such as family members, neighbours, teachers, and caregivers; a 2007 study by the Ministry of Women and Child Development found that over 50% of abusers were known to the child. In such cases, children often lack the emotional independence or capacity to resist or report abuse, making any claim of consent meaningless. Diluting the law would legitimise coercion, suppress disclosures, and contradict the constitutional and statutory commitment to protecting children’s best interests. Lowering the age would also risk encouraging younger children to engage in sexual activity prematurely, without the emotional maturity to comprehend its ramifications.

Parliament has consistently rejected proposals to lower the age of consent. The Justice Verma Committee had recommended keeping it at 16 under IPC Section 375, but Parliament chose to raise it to 18 in 2013, aligning with the POCSO framework. The 240th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (2011) rejected recognising minor consent in the POCSO Bill, stating that willingness or maturity was legally irrelevant. Similarly, the 167th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2012) supported raising the age to 18 and opposed any ‘close-in-age’ exemption. Most recently, the Law Commission’s 283rd Report (2023) on the age of consent warned that reducing the age of consent would render POCSO a “paper law”, undermining efforts to combat child marriage, prostitution, and trafficking.

Legal opinions

Time and again, courts have faced the tough task of upholding the letter of the law while recognising that its application, in some cases, can inflict real harm on those it seeks to protect. In State versus Hitesh (2025), the Delhi High Court (HC) held that “…societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasise the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that are free from exploitation and abuse.... The law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion.” Similarly, the Bombay HC in Ashik Ramjaii Ansari versus State of Maharashtra (2023) held that sexual autonomy includes both the ‘right to engage’ in consensual activity and the ‘right to protection’ from sexual aggression, and that recognising both is key to respecting human sexual dignity.

However, in Mohd. Rafayat Ali versus State of Delhi, the Delhi HC, asserted that “consent is legally immaterial” under POCSO if the victim is under 18. Most notably, on August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a controversial Calcutta HC ruling that acquitted a man in a POCSO case involving a 14-year-old girl, reaffirming that POCSO does not recognise ‘consensual sex’ with minors. Yet, later invoking Article 142 (extraordinary jurisdiction), the top court declined to impose a sentence despite conviction, noting the girl did not view the incident as a crime and had suffered more from the legal process than the act itself, but it also stated that the judgment should not be treated as precedent.

More recently, on August 19, 2025, in a hearing of a case at the SC, Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that romantic relationships between persons on the verge of majority age should be seen differently. “Look at the trauma the girl undergoes if she loves a boy and he is sent to jail, because her parents would file a POCSO case to cover the elopement”, Justice Nagarathna observed.

The road ahead

While reducing the age of consent is within the jurisdiction of Parliament, the SC must step in to clarify the growing interpretational divide between the statutory framework and HC rulings, ensuring consistency for investigating agencies and lower courts alike. Moreover, laws alone cannot address the layered and complex realities of adolescent life. For real impact, we need a holistic approach with access to comprehensive sex education, respect for young people’s autonomy, accessible sexual and reproductive health services, gender-sensitive and responsive law enforcement, and, above all, a social ecosystem that supports adolescents, especially girls, when they find themselves at odds with their families.

Data from studies like Enfold paint a clear picture — there are too many cases, which stem from consensual romance, that are often weaponised by disapproving parents, which clog courts and erodes trust in the system without addressing root issues like poor sex education or cultural taboos around dating. The real challenge involves not merely analysing whether the age of consent should remain 18 or fall back to 16, but how the law can be recalibrated to distinguish genuine adolescent relationships from exploitative ones. A wholesale reduction risks diluting child protection, yet the current blanket rule unjustly criminalises young people navigating consensual intimacy.

Instead of a blanket reduction that could open doors to predators disguising coercion as consent, we need a pragmatic tweak: introduce ‘close-in-age’ exemptions for 16-18-year-olds, say within a 3-4 year gap, coupled with mandatory judicial reviews to sniff out any foul play, while ramping up school programs on healthy relationships, consent, and emotional resilience. This way, we honour adolescent autonomy without gutting protections, and build a framework where kids learn to navigate love safely, reducing misuse of the law and fostering a more empathetic society.

Kartikey Singh is a lawyer based in New Delhi.